In the 1956 case of Arkansas & Louisiana Missouri Railway Co. et al. v. Amarillo-Borger Express, Inc., et al, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Amarillo-Borger Express and other trucking companies who were challenging a decision by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The ICC had previously granted permission to several railroads to extend their operations into areas that were already being serviced by these trucking companies without requiring proof from the railroads that this expansion was necessary for public convenience and necessity - which is typically required under Section 1(18) of the Interstate Commerce Act. The Supreme Court held that such evidence was indeed necessary before granting certificates for extended operation, thus reversing an earlier judgment from a three-judge District Court panel upholding ICC's decision.

In the dissenting opinion for Arkansas & Louisiana Missouri Railway Co. et al. v. Amarillo-Borger Express, Inc., et al., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow a state commission to regulate interstate commerce was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings and federal law. He contended that it undermined the Interstate Commerce Commission’s (ICC) authority over railroad rates for interstate transportation, which he believed should be exclusive under federal law and precedent set by past cases such as Colorado v United States in 1926 and Illinois Central R.R.Co.v Public Utilities Comm'n of California in 1950 among others. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential harm caused by allowing individual states to interfere with or control aspects of national economic policy related to interstate commerce.